Nikon New Camera Teaser, FX Mirrorless to be Announced on 23 August, 2018

[c_watson1]

You can said that dropping the F mount is suicidal but I am 100% sure the new camera won't have the F mount. They would be stupid to use the F mount on the new camera.

 

So you'd be willing to buy a shelf of new Nikkors and/or live with an F-mount adapter?

[ilkka_nissila]

So you'd be willing to buy a shelf of new Nikkors and/or live with an F-mount adapter?

 

I think that's the reality with any mirrorless system: at first you can do some things with adapters and old lenses but if you want the full performance of the camera, you probably want lenses designed for it. Also the adapters may not be so ergonomic, there is the AF sensor and motor for screw drive lenses, the motor to operate the diaphragm of G lenses and a tripod mount. I can't imagine that being very ergonomic to use.

 

In reality I think it makes sense to use DSLR lenses on DSLRs and mirrorless with its own lenses, in the long run. However, some may prefer to use mirrorless camera with F mount manual focus lenses rather than a DSLR.

 

For me, optical viewfinder is preferable but for some specialized applications, such as those benefiting from silence, I may be interested in a mirrorless solution. However it would need to have a really fast electronic shutter to avoid distortion of shapes when movement is involved.

Edited July 24, 2018 by ilkka_nissila

[BeBu Lamar]

So you'd be willing to buy a shelf of new Nikkors and/or live with an F-mount adapter?

Neither as I don't buy a mirrorless. I stick with the DSLR just because I hate the EVF. Now if I were to buy the mirrorless I would buy new lenses, perhaps an adapter while waiting to buy more mirrorless lenses.

I just watched Tony Northup video and he enhanced the Nikon video and he said the new lens doesn't have an aperture ring and also I can tell the camera doesn't have the shutter speed dial. Now the shutter speed dial can be added in later model but no aperture ring would be a big negative for me.

[Dieter Schaefer]

I seem to recall that teaser campaign lasted several weeks, maybe also about a month with 1 to 2 teasers per week, gradually revealing a bit more info at a time.

I posted about the 1st video on the Df here on PN on October 24, 2013 and the sixth (and last) video was published November 3, 2013. You posted the official announcement November 4, 2013. Less than 2 weeks from start to finish.

 

However, some may prefer to use mirrorless camera with F mount manual focus lenses rather than a DSLR.

That's how I got into mirrorless - only it was with M-mount manual focus lenses rather than F-mount. With Nikkors I almost always found the imbalance of long lens/adapter and small camera body off-putting. I jumped right over the stage of using an AF-adapter for Nikon lenses onto Sony bodies (which were a long time coming) and now have a few native Sony FE-mount lenses - most of which utilize the advantage the shorter flange-to-sensor distance provides in that they are small and light-weight. Personally, the biggest disadvantage for me is the EVF - I wear phototropic glasses and when outside with the glasses darkened even maxing out the brightness of the EVF only yields a rather dark image (no such issue with the optical viewfinder of a DSLR).

 

I am vaguely interested in learning how Nikon will make an adapter of AF-S G lenses work on the mirrorless with regard to aperture control. I somehow doubt that one with screwdriver AF will be provided.

[ilkka_nissila]

Well FT-1 already supported G type lens aperture control so this is obviously easy for Nikon to do. I would expect it is necessary to support screwdrive AF given they never got around to making a full AF-S lineup. Sony made an adapter that provides this capability with A mount screwdrive AF lenses.

[ShunCheung]

I posted about the 1st video on the Df here on PN on October 24, 2013 and the sixth (and last) video was published November 3, 2013. You posted the official announcement November 4, 2013. Less than 2 weeks from start to finish.

Two weeks sounds more like it. With a new teaser every 2, 3 days, it can keep the interest going for a little while. At least I would lose interest after 2 weeks.

[donbright]

Are you ready for a Mirrorless Nikon? Its about time and they're a little late in my view, but I'm all in for Mirrorless and from the looks of the size of the mount their intent is to offer FAST!! Glass, like F1.0 and F.08! Will the design be flexible enough to utilize legacy lenses? Or will they be locked out with the new Z mount exclusive. EVFs are fine now and once there, whats the point of a mirror? Get it out of there, move on. If these Nikon mirrorless camera designs incorporate metal construction throughout, they may very well get off on the right foot. I hope Nikon spent the time to think this through. Personally, I'm hoping for the allowance of an adapter for Nikkor legacy lenses its good business!

[ben_hutcherson]

Granted the information was a bit more concrete, but I seem to recall the initial D850 "teaser"-which basically confirmed that there would be a D850 and it would should 8K video-being posted sometime around early to mid August last year, and it was 2-3 weeks before we had the full details.

 

I'll be interested to see what this is.

 

I'm not a likely customer for this, but I'll just comment that I consider the F mount both Nikons greatest strength and weakness. It has kept continuity, but aside from the bayonet, locking pin, and stop-down lever it has little in common with the F of 1959. In fact, we've reached a point even some current production and not inexpensive lenses have as much compatibility with the current D3xxx and D5xxx as do non-AI lenses. Of course, move up to a D500 or full frame body and you get some level of metering and auto exposure with every AI and later lens(save for IX-Nikkors).

 

The need for fast lenses has SORT of gone away with high ISOs and VR, but the F mount hasn't been to support anything faster than a 55/58mm f/1.2(and never in autofocus). The mount diameter is smaller than any other DSLR, and it has the longest registration distance of any current SLR mount.

 

IF Nikon could make an effectively seamless adapter with AI and screwdriver support, and integrate that with a new mount, I could see a new mount being a hit.

[Wouter Willemse]

EVFs are fine now and once there, whats the point of a mirror? Get it out of there, move on.

 

The point of a mirror is that some people still prefer an OVF. I know EVFs have come a long way, but I tried relatively recent mirrorless cameras with good EVFs, and I simply don't like the experience. This is a personal preference, sure, but the constant claim in comments that seem to claim mirrorless is the *only* future is getting a bit tiring. Yes, mirrorless systems are extremely good, worth considering and they have clear advantages. None of which means DSLRs have to go away, or are obsolete all of a sudden. There is room for multiple systems alongside one another. Just like today where you can get a rangefinder, a SLR or a mirrorless. So those silly comments that the mirror has to go: please do stop, and think whether there is any advantage to us (as customers) to have less choice.

[Andrew Garrard]

You can said that dropping the F mount is suicidal but I am 100% sure the new camera won't have the F mount. They would be stupid to use the F mount on the new camera.

 

Thom Hogan was arguing for retaining the F mount. I'm with you - because I remember the Pentax K-01 (K mount mirrorless). It was pointlessly thick; even if the mount was used to hide ND filters or something, it removes the chance for smaller wide-angles. Nikon already lose out to the adaptor crowd, because F mount is one of the least flexible for receiving lenses. I'd love to see Nikon bundle an adaptor, but natively carrying an empty F-mount around would seem like a terrible idea. That said, Nikon don't seem to have transitioned to E-aperture lenses very quickly, so any adaptor is going to need aperture lever control - though for mirrorless it doesn't necessarily need to be dynamic.

 

Neither as I don't buy a mirrorless. I stick with the DSLR just because I hate the EVF. Now if I were to buy the mirrorless I would buy new lenses, perhaps an adapter while waiting to buy more mirrorless lenses.

I just watched Tony Northup video and he enhanced the Nikon video and he said the new lens doesn't have an aperture ring and also I can tell the camera doesn't have the shutter speed dial. Now the shutter speed dial can be added in later model but no aperture ring would be a big negative for me.

 

Are you expecting something like the Df or the Fuji bodies with dedicated dials? I'd be astonished - I'd hope Nikon will take everything they learned (and some things they forgot) from years of dSLR ergonomics and incorporated that.

 

Well... To be fair, it depends. If Nikon choose to make a mirrorless camera that's designed for the rangefinder market (wide to moderate telephoto lenses only, relatively small, for street shooting and the like), they could reasonably make the interface like an F3. It's the same approach Fuji took with the X-Pro series. If they do this, they'd be designing a system to complement the dSLR range, without trying to compromise it in order to make it good at the things the dSLRs are good at (notably camera-to-the-eye controls with big telephotos). It would solve any concerns about competition between their mirrorless and dSLR teams. But it would also leave Nikon committed to dSLRs, with all their production overheads, while Sony (A9) and presumably Canon offer a full transition. Fuji started with an aperture ring on the lenses, and transitioned to controlling them by the camera.

 

If they have a system designed for adjusting controls with the camera to the eye, with the left hand holding a big lens, Df-style controls don't work. The dials you need aren't under your fingers while you finger's on the shutter, there are too many possible controls for too few dials (they need to be repurposable), and the left hand isn't anywhere near the lens mount. (You could have the aperture ring up front, but my left hand is way too busy holding the lens and turning focus and zoom rings to concern itself with an aperture ring. And yes, I have no problem with the aperture ring on a small rangefinder lens, or on my RX100, or even on something like the E-series 50mm - because the lens is tiny and the hand is in the right place. I just isn't extensible.) This is, I strongly believe, why the F5 is very different from the F4, and I don't see Nikon changing back. But then I was amazed they did the Df.

 

I would expect it is necessary to support screwdrive AF given they never got around to making a full AF-S lineup. Sony made an adapter that provides this capability with A mount screwdrive AF lenses.

 

Remember that Nikon never made a teleconverter that handled screwdriver lenses (unless you count the TC-16A). There's not a lot in Nikon's current line up that's screwdriver-based - the 135mm DC and 200mm macro spring to mind, and Sigma will sell you alternatives to both (if the 180 f/2.8 macro counts). Arguably both of those lenses are due for replacement, especially since a large chunk of Nikon bodies hasn't been able to autofocus them for a long time (and I still think Nikon could make, or could have made, a cheaper D6x0 model without a screwdriver motor or aperture ring to cut costs, and not lose many buyers). So I'm expecting Nikon to abandon the screwdriver; we'll be lucky if the aperture ring support extends to an EE post feeler, given that the D3400 has already dropped even this and is G only. If they'd been quicker about rolling out E lenses, I suspect they'd drop the aperture lever, too, making any adaptor solid state. Canon extension tubes are just a few connectors between pins, and everything magically works, because both aperture and focus are electronic; Nikon got there slowly, and their life would have been easier if they'd been quicker.

 

One of the smaller third-party manufacturers was talking about making very fast lenses (f/1 or faster) for the F mount recently; I've forgotten which, and can't find it. They claimed to have some clever optics to make this possible. Whether the consequent depth of field is useful most of the time is another matter. Most very fast lenses have dodgy optics - you can shoot a Noctilux at f/0.95, but even for that money you don't get a particularly sharp image. Look how big Sigma and Zeiss had to go to get a decent 50mm or 85mm f/1.4.

 

For lenses... I hope Nikon will produce some small wide-angles, because that would actually show the benefit of the new format. Maybe something collapsible (I've been arguing for a PF lens that folds flat for a while). They'll need some kind of native mid-range zoom (24-120-like, but hopefully smaller) just for convenience. There's an awfully big lens in the teaser video, which is the kind of thing that looks like it could have been in the F mount, unless it's extraordinarily fast.

 

On the EVF debate, I'd love to see a hybrid (something emitting into the optical finder, like the X-Pro series) for extra information. I don't mind the option of a digital finder - but then that's what you get with live view. My concern with digital finders is that they tend to show a particular rendering of the scene, and that's not usually the rendering I'm going to give it after a lot of image processing. An optical finder at least shows you what the incoming light is, so there's only "what you see" and "what you end up with", not a third representation. I don't deny that it's sometimes useful to know when you're clipping highlights, although I do think Nikon could do a better job with that without resorting to an EVF. (Highlight priority, my expansive posterior. How hard is true ETTR metering to implement?)

 

Still, mirrorless makes for a smaller camera that's cheaper to make (although whether Nikon actually charge less for it is another mattter). A small, cheap, full-frame backup to my dSLR would be a welcome thing. I'm not currently expecting to regret having recently acquired a D850, though. Given that there are still stock problems and the D850 is selling well, I'd vaguely expect Nikon to choose their SKUs to protect the D850, and just go after the D750 end of things (which is a much older camera and looking marginally less impressive against the A7III and 6DII) - but the rumours do suggest a high-res option as well, so we'll see.

[ilkka_nissila]

a large chunk of Nikon bodies hasn't been able to autofocus them for a long time

 

That is true but those bodies are also ones with pentamirror viewfinders so personally I would never consider buying one for my own use. My first digital camera was the D70 and I complained loudly about its awful viewfinder. We can assume many amateurs and enthusiasts to have at least a D7x00 or D6x0, which of course include the focus motors, and a part of the reason people buy these cameras is the compatibility with older lenses. I think the 105/2 DC, 135/2 DC, 200/4 Micro all have valid uses and their own advantages (the look in the DC Nikkors, and the long focal length 1:1 capability of the 200mm). I also think some other lenses which have been replaced have their own advantages of a distinct look, for example, I regret selling the 85/1.4 D. Furthermore it's the principle that counts, and the AF Nikkors without motor were two decades of production, it's unthinkable in my opinion that they would just be dumped. Anýway, I see plenty of older 80-200/2.8's in use in the field and certainly not all of them have been put out of use. There is a cost factor involved that works against the AF-S 70-200/2.8 and even the 70-200/4 is more expensive than the early AF 80-200/2.8. Of course, Nikon may make an adapter with more limited functionality for the users who don't have any of those lenses nor care about them, but I think they should make a high-end adapter with full support of everything from 1970s- and newer. On the other hand the EVF may be such that I may never want to use the new cameras, but I'm willing to give it the benefit of doubt, for some applications where it may be useful (mentioned before, mainly interested in silent shooting options).

 

I would prefer interchangeable EVF/OVF viewfinders (along the lines that the F5 and earlier cameras supported, of course not electronic but there were sports finders etc.) so that people could choose what they want to use. In my opinion the EVF/OVF hybrid of the Fuji X-Pro2 is not very good (the OVF has a huge amount of distortion and I can't see the whole frame with glasses on; the EVF side is also duller than in the X-T2). I do like the X100 series viewfinder a lot, it's also hybrid but made for a non-interchangeable fixed focal length lens. I'm thinking about buying the X100F actually, but the Fuji AF gives me pause.

Edited July 24, 2018 by ilkka_nissila

[BeBu Lamar]

Andrew!

For some reason you think that it's not possible to adjust aperture and shutter speed on the Df while looking at the viewfinder. I have done that since the days of the F2.

[rodeo_joe1]

Let's hope Nikon have learned from the F mount limitations and haven't opted for a mount that's too small. Sony don't seem to have got that memo, judging from their barely-bigger-than-the-sensor E mount.

 

There's so much that could be done with a large mounting hole and short register.... greater shift range for T/S lenses for one. Plus the lower flare from having the walls of the dark chamber well away from the sensor. We'll see.

 

I see nothing wrong, or even difficult, in making backward compatibility with the F mount. A dedicated adapter taking electrical contacts from whatever new mount to F is child's play, and even the addition of an electric aperture actuator shouldn't tax anyone's brainpower. That sorts out E and G lens compatibility, and, truthfully, screwdriver-coupled AF has been staring redundancy in the face for many years.

 

All that said. Nikon have already made their corporate mind up, regardless of anything said here. Speculation is pointless, and all we can do is wait and see.

[ilkka_nissila]

I forgot to mention the 70-180mm AF Micro-Nikkor lens which is a useful and an unusual lens. I've been meaning to buy it second hand but the problem is the second hand price matches the rather high price of the lens when it was available new. :)

 

Nikon obviously can make several adapters with varying levels of cost and complexity. There is no reason they'd lock this in the first version. They have for example patented a semitransparent mirror version of the adapter which is likely intended to maximize performance of older AF lenses, but I also think they have to offer a simpler adapter for those who just want to mount a manual focus lens or something similar and don't need full compatibility and are not interested in paying for it.

Edited July 24, 2018 by ilkka_nissila

[Andrew Garrard]

We can assume many amateurs and enthusiasts to have at least a D7x00 or D6x0, which of course include the focus motors, and a part of the reason people buy these cameras is the compatibility with older lenses.

 

It's a reason. It's certainly been a consideration of mine. But honestly, I strongly suspect an awful lot of people, especially in the market for a new mirrorless, will be using only the current lenses. A fair number will be upgrading from the D3x00 and D5x00 ranges, especially if they're after a small, light camera and mirrorless offers this.

 

I think the 105/2 DC, 135/2 DC, 200/4 Micro all have valid uses and their own advantages (the look in the DC Nikkors, and the long focal length 1:1 capability of the 200mm).

 

They do. But the 105DC has been replaced (there's the Laowa STF if you want the look), and the 135 and 200mm are ancient. I've been expecting them to be replaced for a long time, and I'm sure they're on Nikon's list. Allowing for Sigma (135 f/1.8, 180mm f/2.8), it's not like other alternatives don't exist.

 

I'm a believer in the right lens for the right job (and having a lot of credit card payments to sort this out). I have nothing against screwdriver lenses. But I currently own three: The Sigma 8mm fish-eye (which may as well be manual focus given its depth of field, and is obviously not a Nikkor), the 28-80 f/3.3-5.6 (which isn't very good but is tiny and currently on my D90 when I can't be bothered with the Tamron 24-70) and the 50mm f/1.8 AF-D (I also have the larger f/1.8 AF-S and the smaller E series). Speaking as someone who - by the standards of people not on this forum - owns a lot of glass, that's a very small subset, and losing none of them would upset me. Put against that the 14-24, 50 f/1.8, 70-200, 200/2, 300/4 and 200-500 Nikkors, the 24-70 and 90mm Tamron and the 35/50/85 and 150 Sigmas, all of which are fine with AF-S. Plus some manual lenses which won't benefit from a screwdriver anyway.

 

I have to be biased by my own experience, but it doesn't feel like missing out on an AF motor would hugely harm sales. How popular are the 105, 135 and 200? I only ever had the 135 (and the 28-200 and a couple of 80-200s), and it was rare when I acquired it.

 

I also think some other lenses which have been replaced have their own advantages of a distinct look, for example, I regret selling the 85/1.4 D.

 

They do (although my impression of the 85 f/1.4D is that you could get its wide open effect with vaseline). How many effects couldn't be done better in Photoshop is another matter. It's true that depth-based effects like DC and transition near the focal plane are aspects of a lens design, but whether they're enough to justify making an adaptor bigger and more expensive is more questionable to me.

 

Furthermore it's the principle that counts, and the AF Nikkors without motor were two decades of production, it's unthinkable in my opinion that they would just be dumped.

 

And yet... the D40 happened. And the F5 shipped with an aperture ring that doesn't let you fold its tab flat. I support what you're saying, and obviously I'd prefer more functionality in an adaptor than less, but if I were bean counting I'm not sure I'd make the decision you'd like.

 

There is a cost factor involved that works against the AF-S 70-200/2.8 and even the 70-200/4 is more expensive than the early AF 80-200/2.8.

 

Yes. Of course, there's a reason. :-) In cases where Nikon would just like you to upgrade to the current glass, I think the argument for compatibility is less strong. The adaptor needs to be there to support the holes in the system while Nikon produce some mirrorless lenses. Whether they do users the favour of supporting ancient glass is another matter, and a different requirement. And it would cost money and weight compared with one that didn't.

 

Of course, Nikon may make an adapter with more limited functionality for the users who don't have any of those lenses nor care about them, but I think they should make a high-end adapter with full support of everything from 1970s- and newer.

 

True, and I'd like to see this. I hope Nikon have thought about it, and have the necessary connections to support it. To be fair, I don't know how much camera support it would really need.

 

On the other hand the EVF may be such that I may never want to use the new cameras, but I'm willing to give it the benefit of doubt, for some applications where it may be useful (mentioned before, mainly interested in silent shooting options).

 

I can vouch for silent shooting on the D850, in live view. Doing the same with better autofocus does have some appeal, I admit.

 

I would prefer interchangeable EVF/OVF viewfinders (along the lines that the F5 and earlier cameras supported, of course not electronic but there were sports finders etc.) so that people could choose what they want to use. In my opinion the EVF/OVF hybrid of the Fuji X-Pro2 is not very good (the OVF has a huge amount of distortion and I can't see the whole frame with glasses on; the EVF side is also duller than in the X-T2). I do like the X100 series viewfinder a lot, it's also hybrid but made for a non-interchangeable fixed focal length lens. I'm thinking about buying the X100F actually, but the Fuji AF gives me pause.

 

Unless they go the route of the SLR attachments for M-series rangefinders, I don't think this is practical - there have been cameras with a second sensor just to provide an EVF, but it seems redundant. If you're using the main sensor and an EVF, why are you carting around a mirror box? Building an EVF into the optical finder path, both for overlays and optional live view, does feel achievable - though it does make the finder bigger (and potentially darker). I can't get the diopter adjustment I need for the X100 series, sadly - hence my recent Coolpix A.

[Andrew Garrard]

Andrew!

For some reason you think that it's not possible to adjust aperture and shutter speed on the Df while looking at the viewfinder. I have done that since the days of the F2.

 

Not at all - and I've done the same on my Bessa R, whose interface closely matches the FM. I do think changing exposure compensation and ISO with the eye to the finder are a bit challenging, though, at least with any lens that's not trivially light. On most of Nikon's recent designs, you use the same right-hand dials to change these (though I have a bone to pick with Nikon for the unnecessary requirement to take the finger off the shutter sometimes - not needed if you could use Pv or Fn1 to trigger EC or ISO changes, and worse since the official move of ISO to the right hand side got rid of "easy ISO" for no good reason; I did mention complaining about Nikon's UI).

 

Exposure control has three variables, plus a mode option deciding what they are. Shutter, aperture, ISO, exposure compensation, pick any three (plus complication if you want control over auto ISO minimum shutter speed). But with a longer lens, those controls all have to be on the right hand, ideally where you can get to them. And you have supporting the lens, zooming and potentially focussing to worry about, and the right hand also has to worry about autofocus configuration. Then there's the question of whether people want to adjust settings in whole, half or third stops. Fixed-use dials just don't make all that practical. You can absolutely make a limited-use camera with this behaviour (like the X100 series), but unless that's what Nikon chooses to do in mirrorless, it's no substitute for their general dSLR interface.

 

Of course, I absolutely think the normal dSLR interface could be made more friendly to those who like to change the settings before raising the camera to the eye - such as large LCD or eInk readouts on the dials and optional interlocks that avoid the need to have the meter active to change a setting. I just don't think you need to compromise the general dSLR interface to do it.

 

Speculation is pointless, and all we can do is wait and see.

 

Nonsense! We can all decide what we would have liked Nikon to release, and then be really disappointed when they don't do it! Why else would Nikon tease a camera? If we argue features to a consensus here, we might find a Nikon employee gets the feature list and builds it into a camera. (I kind of hope it's part of someone's job at Nikon to be keeping an eye on forums like this.) Somewhat more likely, we can all agree on what we would have liked Nikon to do, after much discussion and compromise, and then we can be definitive in calling Nikon idiots for doing something else. :-)

[ilkka_nissila]

It's a reason. It's certainly been a consideration of mine. But honestly, I strongly suspect an awful lot of people, especially in the market for a new mirrorless, will be using only the current lenses. A fair number will be upgrading from the D3x00 and D5x00 ranges, especially if they're after a small, light camera and mirrorless offers this.

 

I don't agree with this. A strong reason to use Nikon in the first place is the plethora of lenses, old and new, which are available in the second hand market.

 

They do. But the 105DC has been replaced (there's the Laowa STF if you want the look)

 

Well a 1kg lens isn't a replacement to a 600 g lens in my book if you're talking about the 105/1.4. Also the 105 DC does not produce cat's eyes bokeh neither does the 135 DC. For one reason or another the 135 DC has produced the most framed prints on my walls.

 

Allowing for Sigma (135 f/1.8, 180mm f/2.8), it's not like other alternatives don't exist.

 

Alternatives with a totally different look to the picture.

 

Not everyone wants to buy a "replacement" if they can do with what they have, and they're happy with the output. It's a ridiculous idea that every time a new product comes to the market, we're supposed to buy it. In my opionion, the default behavior should be that a lens is replaced only when it simply won't work and is not serviceable. The idea of constant buying may be behind today's western economics but it's an unsound one, for the planet.

 

I have to be biased by my own experience, but it doesn't feel like missing out on an AF motor would hugely harm sales.

 

It may hurt the image of the brand, and it may hurt users.

 

 

They do (although my impression of the 85 f/1.4D is that you could get its wide open effect with vaseline).

 

But you don't have to use it wide open. I particularly liked its look from f/1.8 to f/3.5. The idea that a lens is only shot wide open is a strange one IMO. For a long time lenses were designed to be used 1-2 stops stopped down for best results, and in portraiture I would argue that the use of a f/1.4 lens wide open isn't among the best choices a photographer can make, usually. Even with super-sharp lenses like the 105/1.4 Nikkor, I often find f/2 or f/2.8 to look more pleasing. But current-day Nikkors have more muted colours whereas the 85/1.4 AF-D was more lively. Also some people may like its flare characteristics - I certainly have some images where a bit of flare (which is absent in today's nano-coated lenses to a large extent) contributed to a more pleasing image. That's the thing - it's about having a choice.

 

 

How many effects couldn't be done better in Photoshop is another matter.

 

Much more likely is that a distasteful result is made in Photoshop than one created by a lens. This kind of wax doll -style rendering of faces where the photographer couldn't contain themselves in photoshop are far too common.

 

And yet... the D40 happened.

 

That camera is a fraction of the cost of a high end full frame mirrorless camera and attends to a different market entirely. A user with a D40 or D3400 budget isn't likely able to buy a new Nikon full frame mirrorless any time soon.

 

And the F5 shipped with an aperture ring that doesn't let you fold its tab flat.

 

Pre-Ai lenses can be converted to Ai, solving the problem. If a lens wasn't converted to Ai, it likely has been unused for decades, and how likely is it that it will still work? I don't need eternal compatibility just compatibility of lenses that interest me and others. And a mirrorless camera can probably use a non-Ai adapter made by someone else.

 

I support what you're saying, and obviously I'd prefer more functionality in an adaptor than less, but if I were bean counting I'm not sure I'd make the decision you'd like.

 

But those bean counters who make decisions that break compatibility lead to loss of customers like myself, which might be a problem to Nikon (not because of me, but because the surprising number of people who use far older Nikkors than I do).

 

Yes. Of course, there's a reason. :) In cases where Nikon would just like you to upgrade to the current glass, I think the argument for compatibility is less strong.

 

Nikon can want a lot of things, but these kinds of attitudes are considered "ill will" towards customers and it will be returned in kind.

 

And it would cost money and weight compared with one that didn't.

 

That's the thing: the cost of the adapter is paid by the customer: the more sophisticated it is, the more money they can ask for it, and everyone is happy.

 

 

If you're using the main sensor and an EVF, why are you carting around a mirror box?

 

Because on-sensor CDAF requires a lens capable of adjusting the focus quickly, precisely and reproducibly in tiny increments and old lenses just can't do it because of the play in the mechanism. On-sensor PDAF has finite range and finite sensitivity (which is where CDAF steps are needed, and a lens that can execute those gradient estimation steps precisely and quickly) and a separate module is better in both respects, while it can be worse in accuracy depending on calibration and other factors. For support of old lenses, a separate AF sensor is helpful.If this wasn't a major problem to be solved, Nikon wouldn't have applied for a patent for this kind of an adapter.

[Andrew Garrard]

A strong reason to use Nikon in the first place is the plethora of lenses, old and new, which are available in the second hand market.

 

Is it though? I wonder how many Nikon dSLR purchasers actually bother with older lenses. A fair number (not all) of older lenses turn out not to hold up very well on a modern sensor. Added to the compatibility constraints of cheaper bodies, and Nikon's "works with everything since the 1960s" mount has always had a lot of footnotes. The concept is appealing, but frankly so is Canon's "works with everything since 1987, and we really mean it". They should certainly ensure that lenses mount on an adaptor, but forcing AF lenses to manual focus doesn't feel like it would lose sales. Bumping the price of an adaptor, to the point where Nikon don't want to bundle it, might. (I'm not arguing, this is a genuine question about the attachment rate of pre-AF-S lenses on dSLRs.)

 

I agree about cat's eye bokeh (I have a Petzval if I want my bokeh swirly). One reason I'm hesitant about the 135mm Sigma (other than the lack of infinite money) is the hope that Nikon might do an updated 135 without this effect - and ideally STF. I even agree that many elderly lenses have merits. (I have a 200mm f/4 AI because I need a 52mm filter thread for astronomy.) Still, Nikon's number one priority with a mirrorless body and a new mount has to be to ensure that a complete lens set is available. That means compatibility with all, or nearly all, the lenses that Nikon currently sell, in a convenient and affordable adaptor. While Nikon owners may like to have access to every Nikkor ever made and have it work perfectly, that's not necessarily the same adaptor - and I do agree that they could exist as separate products. Nikon, on the other hand, would probably quite like people to be encouraged to "upgrade" to their latest glass.

 

The nice thing for Nikon to do for their customers is to produce a fully-compatible adaptor, at cost. Maybe they will (and, if I had more AF-D lenses, I'd get one if I bought the mirrorless system). But - without knowing how large the "surprising number" of Nikon users with elderly glass might be - I'm worried that if it's the only option, they'll be penalising the majority of customers who have modern glass, and if it's not the only option, it'll be expensive and extra engineering effort that they'd rather spend on more native lenses. Nikon have thrown customers under the bus many times before. Sometimes the solution has been "buy a more expensive camera"; sometimes even that doesn't work.

 

Mainly, though, the FT-1 didn't have a motor. I don't really see why the arguments that applied to that won't also apply to an adaptor for a new mirrorless system, now there have been several more years for AF-S and AF-P lenses to hit the market. Arguing the merits of the 80-200 AF-D lenses when we're now on the fourth generation of 70/80-200 f/2.8 lens that would work, plus an f/4, doesn't feel like Nikon HQ will buy it, based on their previous choices.

 

(More of reply to follow after I've done some work!)

[mwmcbroom]

Welp, I didn't see a mirror in that mirror box that sucks you in at the end, so my vote is for it being a mirrorless camera, and I'll wager it will be full-frame too. Yeah, I agree, it looks a little like a Sony A7-series. I don't think Nikon will discard the F mount. I agree with c_watson that it would be almost suicidal. But there's no reason why this new camera's F-mount can't have a totally electronic interface, a la Canon's EF mount. Of course, if it is mirrorless, this means an adapter to use legacy Nikkors and it'll likely be a while before there will be a full gamut of mirrorless mount Nikkors. But I expect it to be worth the wait. Plus, Sigma, Tokina, and Tamron will do their best to grab some of that lens market share too. Oh, and also -- look for a sensor on this camera to have at least 50 mp. That's my guess. Price point? Somewhere around where the 800-series has been selling at, would be my guess.

[Wouter Willemse]

I wonder how many Nikon dSLR purchasers actually bother with older lenses. A fair number (not all) of older lenses turn out not to hold up very well on a modern sensor.

 

The problem here may not be the number of people, but the goodwill with long-time customers. Asking them to dump lenses they already own and like, just because your business model prefers that, is a great way to alienate customers, and worse: your potentially strongest advocates as they're more tied to the brand than somebody with a camera and 1-2 lenses all bought at the same time.

In many ways Canon made a bunch of right choices moving to the EF mount. But they also lost a good number of customers. In today's world, with social media and customer reviews playing a huge role in purchase decisions, making a similar move would create a pretty serious marketing problem. And Nikon has problems enough with marketing as it is.

 

The story about older lenses not holding up to sensors is a "problem" is a problem for those who value optical perfection over lens character. And frankly, I think if you use a lens like the AiS 35mm f/1.4 today, you do so because you like the character of that lens, not because you expect it to deliver some sort of mathematical perfection. Different users with different priorities.

Plus, do try some of those old primes: you'd be amazed how good they actually perform. The "lens does not hold up to sensor" myth is, IMHO, very overrated and underlined far too often.

[BeBu Lamar]

Andrew!

I rarely use ISO control as I set the ISO for the situation before hand. I do at times use auto ISO but that's not the point. I am used to not changing the ISO because in the film days that's a tough thing to do. I never use the exposure compensation because if I don't shoot as per the meter I would shoot in manual. I use the F3 for almost 40 years and I never once used its exposure compensation feature. That is the reason why I need to switch auto ISO on and off quickly because when I use it I only use it in A mode. When I need more or less exposure than the meter said I switch to manual and also have to switch that auto ISO off.

[Dieter Schaefer]

I forgot to mention the 70-180mm AF Micro-Nikkor lens which is a useful and an unusual lens.

You may want to check again as at least here in the US prices seem to have dropped to around $1,000. I owned the lens for many years but eventually realized that a Sigma 150 macro suits me better. The 70-180 is great for close-up work when used on a tripod but to me the rather limited working distance even at 180mm turned out to be a bit of an issue.

 

Keep wondering if the Nikon mirrorless will have IBIS - IMHO it will be still-born if it doesn't.

[Dieter Schaefer]

I wonder how many Nikon dSLR purchasers actually bother with older lenses.

I no longer do - the last one with screwdriver AF has just been sold and I have no intention of acquiring another one ;)

 

But I do understand people like Wouter and I think it should be mandatory for Nikon to provide such an adapter (even though it may not be an easy feat to provide a proper interface with the demands of the on-sensor AF as Ilkka pointed out). Nikon will squander a lot of goodwill - just as Canon did in 1987 even if their move turned out to be the right one.

[ilkka_nissila]

Here it costs quite a bit more. An EXC+ copy at Grays of Westminster is £1225.

 

Stabilization technology is good to have in long lenses but I rarely see much use in it at shorter lenses. I have it in the 24-70 but I tend to favour fast shutter speeds or a tripod, to get either motion freezing of moving subjects, or guaranteed sharpness at any shutter speed for static subjects (tripod). I guess there is some gray area where stabilization is beneficial (slowly moving subjects or subjects that are small in the image) but it doesn't strike me as something that I would make important buying decisions based on. I know Olympus and Sony users rave about it, but I am a bit of a control freak when it comes to my photos and I like the certainty that very fast shutter speeds and/or tripod gives me. And the tripod also makes it easier to get everything aligned perfectly.

 

I have two AF Nikkors without motors (105 DC and 200 Micro) and may purchase 1-2 more at some point. It's not that I like the body motor solution but simply certain characteristics of the optics. The 200 I would be happy to replace with AF-S or AF-P if offered by Nikon. The 105 DC I will likely never want to give up. I use the 105/1.4 a lot but it is a completely different kind of dish.

[Gary Naka]

IMHO, this is a chance to "white-sheet" the lens mount.

Fix all the issues with the F mount and design a mount and coupling for the next 50 years.

As a dedicated Nikon user from the film days, the mount is one of the things that has bugged me. The physical mount has remained the same since the 1960s, but the lens coupling to the body for metering, aperture and other functions has changed many times. If I want to buy a lens, I have to look at a compatibility chart to determine if that lens will work on my DSLR, and if I loose functionality or not.